|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On Game Design
The game and the rules should not limit my or anyone else's creativity in the design of complex systems or any other aspect of building a robot or the strategy of how to play the game.
|
|
#2
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: On Game Design
O.K. I'm ready to chime in. I am going to address one aspect of Matt's original post: Additional parts restriction and money restriction. Many of you that know me or have had this conversation with me already know where I am going, but here I go again.
At first glance, one would think that restricting additional parts would level the playing field. On the contray, the more restriction placed on the additional parts; the more advantage the "big money" teams have. The ThunderChickens are one of those "big money" teams. If the restriction went to $700, or even $500 our machine would look the same. Why? We can make everything we currently buy. We buy a $25 gear today and I could have it made on a wire EDM for free (cost of the steel ~$2) by our sponsor. We currently chose not to do this, but we could. With no restriction, the small team could buy the same $25 gear. If the restriction existed, the small team would have to pay anywhere between $50 to $250 to have it made if they could find a place at all. The tighter the restriction, the more advantage my team has. Another huge downfall of the restriction is the need for us to get T.V. exposure. What? How does the additional part restrictions have anything to do with T.V. exposure? The robots have to look good if we want to be on T.V. If they look like something we built in our garage, then we will have a harder time getting exposure. Look at the moster trucks .. beautiful artwork and design that gets destroyed at each competition ... the looks do nothing for the function but it is important for the exposure. Same goes for NASCAR or Drag Racing, or Formula 1. Looks matter and restriction on parts will kill any chance we have of getting real T.V. exposure. Either way, we will play with whatever rules we are given because the ThunderChickens will be inspired either way. -Paul |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
I do believe Matt's point though, was this- If other teams are capable of producing equally, if not more capable robots for much less money, why do teams have to spend the full $3000? Personally, I like the robots that look like they came out of a garage better than the polished up show robots. Maybe as Matt's info says, I've "been in FIRST too long", but I like seeing the ins and outs of a robot's systems. A machine will look good if it's well built, and throwing more money at a machine won't make it any better. What makes a machine great is it's fundadmental design and inherent functionality, not how much money is spent on it. To expand on that idea further, FIRST is about inspiring kids about science and technology, and what better way to get kids thinking than by presenting a problem. I'd rather students think of a creative and innovative method of coping with a mechanical issue with given resources, rather than say "well, we could always just buy this." My team has always been on a limited budget, so we're forced to find creative ways around what otherwise would end up as an expense, and I wouldn't trade anything in the world for that experience. As far as TV exposure, I'd almost fear that for FIRST at this point. FIRST is no monster truck rally, or racing event, or sports game, and shares none of the values each of them entail. The only way robotics will become interesting to TV audiences is if they become all out battlebots. I think FIRST is trying to change America on a culteral level by planting the seeds of gracious professionalism in the youth of the nation, and hope it grows and flowers once those students grow up and become the leaders of the future. Personally, I'd rather not see FIRST sacrifice it's roots of inspiration to pander to the TV crowd, even if the intentions are to inspire the TV crowd. I feel too much of what FIRST means would be lost in the process. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
If we could have a television network broadcast the final matches from Einstein we would be golden. |
|
#5
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Marc P.,
What exactly do you disagre with? If the limit was $500, could you build the same robot you did with $1,200? All I am saying is that a "big money" team probably could and a low budget team probably couldn't. Is this what you disagree with? As to the quality of a product: You say that throwing more money at a design will not make it better. Many times this is just not true. Throwing money at a design is one of the easiest ways to make something more functional. I am actually in that situation right now with a development we are working on. The trick in many engineering applications is to make it good enough for the task at hand at the lowest cost. We will just agree to disagree about your comment on battlebots. The reason Comedy Central pulled the plug is that it was not interesting enough to capture the audiences' attention for 3 years in a row (same old, same old). We need to get the average Joe T.V. watcher to keep the channel on our competition for 10 minutes. If we can do that, then he will get interested and that will start an explosion of reaching more and more students outside of the current FIRST community. The key to those 10 minutes is flair. We need more flair. As to your point about finding creative ways to solve problems. I agree with you, but I argue that even if the limits were opened up all the way (this year was very close) you can't just go out and buy any old component off the shelf. There is one MAJOR limiting factor we must deal with that rules almost every decision we make ... 130lb maximum. That limit forces us to make a lot more creative decisions than chsing between EDM gears vs. bought gears. I really don't like re-inventing the wheel, so just let me buy my gears (and bearings and sprockets, etc.) I know, let's play a fun (and maybe enlightening for all) game. Let's think of a restriction we would like to put on the game to level the playing field and see how it affects different teams. Since I don't like any restriction, I won't go first. -Paul P.S. - I have been wating for this debate to resurface for a while now, because there are many long time FIRSTers that disagree on this subject. |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
From your posts, What I am seeing is that you would like to have a game that is like the following: You're in a 24' x 48' arena. 2 blue robots against 2 red robots. There are 30 soccer balls across the field edges. There are two 5' wide, 4' tall stationary octagon-shaped PVC goals, designated blue and red. Each ball is worth 5 points when you get it inside the goal. Most points wins. This is a straightforward game, the rules are simple, and everyone has the same objective. Get the balls off the floor, put them in the goal. The tasks aren't trivial, but they're not difficult. The machine with the most consistent ball gatherer and unloader should win every time. You don't run the risk of picking the wrong "key of the game." Personally, I find that boring. And here's why: Strategy. After I saw the game released this year, I knew that there would be no robot that could do EVERYTHING consistently. One or two teams came somewhat close. Everything: Grab the goal Climb the 6" steps Knock off the 10 point ball Hang from the bar Fully secure the big ball from the floor, small goal, and big goal. Pick balls off the floor Capture the balls falling from the drop chute. I personally would rather see teams make their engineering choices on their game strategy as opposed to the costs of components on their machine. You won't be able to control the dollars spent unless you limit FIRST to a single distributor and have a mile of bookkeeping. To be honest, the $3,500 limit appears to be more of a gesture than a true check. I think that the dollar limit really just ensures teams aren't using immense amounts of titanium. Limiting machines down to a much lower dollar amount just won't make the impact that you're looking to see, because the amount of money that teams typically spend on their robots only makes up between 10% and 20% of teams' budgets as it is. Money is not what limits teams' success. Experience does. It always will. Quote:
I'm not so sure that I'm a fan of this either... especially in 2003's game where being on the ramp was the deciding factor on if you won the match or not in 95% of the cases. However, the points were balanced this year. 50 points was appropriate. 75 would have been too many. It should be noted that many competitive alliances had robots that did not hang, and they were very successful. I do not think this year was complicated. There were no complex math formulas. You could read the points on the field. 5 points for the purple balls in the goals, you double the ball values if you cap the goal they're in, you get 50 points for hanging on the bar. For anyone attending a competition, this was easy to explain. I think that restricting the "everything" list to one or two things will really limit the objective of this program - inspiration. Seeing robots twice as capable as your own with the same restrictions is awe-inspiring. I think FIRST wants to see more students with their tongues wagging over something incredible. Loosing to incredible machines is okay in my book. I think that rookies usually fail when they try to bite off more than they can chew. Hanging was a tough task, and many rookies who tried to do this via climbing up the steps had two seriously challenging things to do. This was perhaps the wrong choice for many rookies. But I bet they learned a lot. And I bet they'll be back next year. Matt Last edited by Matt Adams : 30-04-2004 at 13:31. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On Game Design
I think I haven't come across clearly enough about my philosophy of how the game should be designed. I honestly thought the points for this year's game were well balanced. However, I do believe that there were still too many ways to score and that the difficulty in the various tasks was too great. I don't like the idea of extremely hard tasks (hanging this year after climbing steps) nor do I like the idea of easy tasks (ball herding). I don't think hanging is bad in and off itself (I have no problems with scoring a lot of points via one method as long as it's not out of balance with other scoring methods).
While I originally (meaning last year when I first started thinking about this) thought that one method to score was optimal, when talking to Aidan Browne at the Championship this year I realized that it wasn't a good idea. I think that there should be two main methods of scoring that have balanced difficulty and balanced points (think the balls and hanging from 2000 or the balls and goals from 2002). Two methods of scoring gives plenty of opportunity for strategy while not making the game too complicated. As for the idea that most teams don't spend a significant amount of their budget on their robot, I highly beg to differ. Most young teams do not have large financial support. I've been on several of them. Many teams have a budget under $10,000 a year. These are the teams that I think are under a significant disadvantage under the current system that could be rectified. The best way I can think of to make it more fair for these teams is to lower the cost limit. Matt |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
P.J. |
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
Quote:
While with so many ways to score this year, you'd think that both teams in an alliance would have to compete, it didn't appear that way to me. At least from watching the Championship finals, it seemed that one team of the alliance would immediately go and hang and the other alliance member would then proceed to attempt to herd small balls, cap with the big ball, and then go hang. That doesn't seem like a fair dividing of resources so I wouldn't say that a more complex game helps make all the teams participate. Quote:
Matt |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On Game Design
Quote:
Sometime I think people really need to remember the difference between theory and reality. Complex mechanisms may work great....but sometimes a bar of alluminum is all you need. ![]() Last edited by Ryan F. : 30-04-2004 at 19:18. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On Game Design
To expand in another direction from Ken, from my vantage point I saw the rookies this year do much better overall than in the previous few years (not to offend any rookies that did well in the past). By making the big points scoreable with mechanisms, nearly all of the rookie and 2nd year teams that created a "box on wheels" robot a year ago or the teams that have never built a robot before, attempted and in many cases succeeded at getting their mechanism(s) to work. Heck, there was a rookie in the runner-up alliance in Atlanta. The teams this year stepped up to the challenges placed in front of them, much the way the young teams did back in the late 90's when ChiefDelphi boards were in it's infancy, and design sharing was just getting started. Since life isn't fair and neither is FIRST, I believe the game this year sufficiently challenged the veterans and the young teams alike, and is one of my favorites along with '99. The only way for the young teams to be able to strive towards the harder tasks is to start experimenting early, and continue to innovate new ways to solve the same technical problems. Many of the challenges this year were solved with very simple mechanisms and that is one of the key lessons for any team to learn.
Keep the challenges coming, as long as the game points fit into a reasonable scheme. Steve |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On Game Design
I don't see the game as too complex.
This comes from being with a team that is in its second year and could complete all task each of the last two years. This has let us be in the division finals each of the last two years. Fairly good for how untechnically advanced our robots have been. We've used sprocket and chain drive and have not done a lot in the off season. Hopefully we might consider doing more this summer because a new drive system would be nice, but a very simplistic one has worked great. Our biggest asset is that we try to live by KISS. The only machined parts our the hub for our tires. Our most complex part we've purchased is taking the impeller from a shop vac. With strategy and a fairly robust design you can do well. You may not be able to do all the task well (we only made stacks twice last year, and barely herded any ball this year), but you can compete. I like the rules how they are now. It's not going to be completely fair but it won't stop people from competing. And if you are only in it to compete and win you've got to realize you can't always but just take advantage of the learning experience. As to FIRST becoming a year-round program. It is. So much needs to be done before that 6 weeks unless you are just crazy. You can do it in six weeks and be successful but I wouldn't reccomend it. Get fundraising, and paperwork done early. Our team spends a lot of time in the community during the off season. FIRST is definitely like a sport. I played three sports in high school. I concentrated on basketball during basketball season but that doesn't stop me from shooting around during the rest of the year. Some just take it farther and play tournaments and spend a lot of time praticing their skills. You can be competitive just playing during the season, but those that put in the time all year will have an advantage. I don't think changing the game to two intemediate task or letting people spend less is going to change anything. IMHO. |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On Game Design
The complexity of the games doesn't hurt the rookies at all. Even though it does seem that the games are more complex, it also seems that the easier component of the game can beat out the harder one. For this year's game as an example - hearding balls and capping could easily beat out hanging robots. Hearding isn't that hard and capping takes a little more work but isn't as hard as hanging. I did see a lot of rookies do well using these methods. As for last year's game - though stacking was hard to do, it was almost irrelevent. I still remember the match in Chicago when 16 was making a stack. I think they spent a good 30 seconds on that. The second that top box was put on, there was a robot charging at it to knock it down. While rookies didn't have the good drivetrains that were necessary last year, they were still able to give the veterans a run for their money. I don't see the design of the games inhibiting the new teams ability to compete. I think every rookie has a good shot at winning as long as they can do one thing and do it well.
Eric |
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On Game Design
"The game isn't fair. It was never supposed to be fair."
Dean Kamen, kickoff 2003 |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: On Game Design
I know there are some teams with a lot of money. But I don't see them setting around thinking, "hmmm...I could build this for 1,200 or 3,500 and it will have the same functionality. I think I'll spend the 3,500." People try to build the best robot for the cheapest price. It is human nature, especially around us engineering types.
I don't see having a the limit at 3,500 as causing bad robot design. I want example of teams spending 3,500 for things they could do for 1,200. And if they did for some reason I don't think I would really care. If they found an easier way and kept under the limits and it worked for them it is okay by me. Money is really good at finding its way into places. You've heard of campaign finance reform. Well in FIRST the limit is kind of like your hard money. But all the organization that become part of your team and help with machining are like soft money. You will always have people with more resources in FIRST. Hence, FIRST isn't meant to be fair. These ideas are meant to even the playing field. I don't see them making that happen. There will always be the have and have-nots. There will be teams with lots of resources and teams with little resources. The best way I've seen if your serious about making a level playing field would be to limit teams to one regional. This seems to give an advantage to teams with the resources to attend two regionals and to team in the proximity of multiple regionals, primarily the East and Mid-East regions. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2002 game prediction contest!!! | Ken Leung | Rumor Mill | 41 | 31-12-2007 18:18 |
| What changes to this year's game...? | DougHogg | General Forum | 16 | 20-04-2003 15:35 |
| game design challenge: what was your entry | Ryan Foley | General Forum | 1 | 20-03-2003 21:42 |
| "Rigging" the game vs playing the game strategically - what's the difference? | ColleenShaver | Rules/Strategy | 13 | 15-01-2003 10:33 |
| Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game... | dlavery | General Forum | 157 | 07-01-2003 23:55 |